OT: BRADY or PAPI....

I'm not from Boston so maybe I don't have a say, but I would give the edge to Brady for elevating football and the Patriots to a level they had never been. The Red Sox and Celtics were already big time, Brady and BB put the Pats on that level. If i am wrong, I apologize.

Hate how people use championships as a measure of individual greatness in team sports. Do you really think David Ortiz could hold Ted Williams's jock? Do you think Eli friggin Manning is a better QB than his brother or Dan Marino? Bill Russell over Wilt even though Wilt would torch him every time out there? It's just absurd. This is the Mt Rushmore of Boston Sports:

Brady-Bird-Orr-Williams

Ie, the best player to play for each of the four franchises.

Click to expand...

13 pages in. And this. this is the truth.

I didn't know much about Bobby Orr until his name was mentioned here 3 or 4 years ago. I spent an evening googling video's of him playing and wow. Just Wow.

I'm not even a Hockey fan.
so I'm good with Brady-Bird-Orr-Williams Papi seems a standup guy and is the life and soul of this team, but does not compare to any of these previously mentioned guys.
having said that, the achievement of this years Red sox should not go without its due respect. It was an incredible achievement. Considering the amount of quality pitching they beat in the play offs.

I didn't know much about Bobby Orr until his name was mentioned here 3 or 4 years ago. I spent an evening googling video's of him playing and wow. Just Wow.

I'm not even a Hockey fan.
so I'm good with Brady-Bird-Orr-Williams Papi seems a standup guy and is the life and soul of this team, but does not compare to any of these previously mentioned guys.
having said that, the achievement of this years Red sox should not go without its due respect. It was an incredible achievement. Considering the amount of quality pitching they beat in the play offs.

Chapeau......

Click to expand...

Bird is definitely not a slam dunk for the Celtics. I would pick Russell over Bird. Russell dominated.

Here's the question to ask: which championship season, red sox in 2004 or patriots in 2001, can the city live without? The answer to that will tell you who has been more valuable to the city of boston. Note, this is an entirely different question from which athlete is better at his respective position.

Cam Neely was on Felger and Mazz the other day and was asked about the Red Sox championship. It was more specifically asked if one team winning in a city pushed the others to do the same. Neely stated it pretty clearly that they did and pointed out that they are fighting for same air time, fan time, ticket spending, merchandise spending, and advertising dollars.

I think many people forget what it was like around here before Brady came onto the scene. It can be argued that Brady and Belichick transformed Boston from the "fellowship of the miserable" to "title town". The Red Sox were never considered big spenders prior to that time and did financially well without ever having to really field a quality team. The same was true for the Bruins and Celtics. It was only when the Patriots, traditionally the black sheep of the four sports franchises, started to draw the fan attention from the other franchises that these teams made serious efforts at championships. They could no longer coast along with their entrenched fan bases as Brady and the Patriots changed the equation.

Brady may not be the easiest for Boston fans to embrace with his somewhat aloof Hollywood persona but as far as importance to the Boston sports scene it begins and ends with him. He is one of the best five players in the most popular sport in the country. Baseball fans around the country know who Ortiz is. Everyone in the country knows Tom Brady. I'd argue that he probably is our most recognized athlete of the four major sports internationally as well.

I probably shouldn't be bothering with this because it will go nowhere with a confirmation biasing gentleman such as yourself but, there is literally not enough LOLOLOLs on the planet for the idea that wins are an "objective measure of qb efficiency." You literally have no concept of sample size, statistical variance, objectivity or any reasonable analytical measure of quarterback efficiency if you claim that to be the case.

It's like basically not even an argument outside of this segment of the country (and before you you punt to it, it's not about jealousy, no one give a flying **** that Eli both sucks and is a 2 time winning SB champion or that Aaron Rodgers is always there at the end of the year despite his defense being complete aids).

People nationally probably underrate Brady but he is just not on Manning's level by any analytic metric or by the all-too-obvious eye test, it's borderline unanimous. Any argument otherwise is fueled by insane homerism or a hilarious misunderstanding of either how the game works or variance or both.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you think this is some definitive analysis, but it isn't. There are plenty of factors that it doesn't measure and by trying be objective it falls flat on recognizing those factors and their significant impact on the numbers.

That being said, I don't think it matters. I think your absolute about it not being an argument outside of this area is wrong as well. I hear plenty of national people pick Brady and other pick Manning. Further it changes from year to year depending on their relative performance. Its an effort in futility especially at this point when neither has finished their career and the stories continue to change.

I'm pretty comfortable saying that I would take Brady's career over Manning's and I am sure there are others that would say the opposite.

Here's the question to ask: which championship season, red sox in 2004 or patriots in 2001, can the city live without? The answer to that will tell you who has been more valuable to the city of boston. Note, this is an entirely different question from which athlete is better at his respective position.

Click to expand...

Patriots in 2001. According to Shaunessy the Red Sox fans loved the curse.

you can add Ortiz to that list without a doubt. just look at his numbers. his playoff performances are jaw dropping. mr clutch

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are referring to but his playoff numbers and regular season numbers are nearly identical.

I am a huge Ortiz fan but I am also not sure if he belongs on that list. Brady,Bird, Orr, Williams, Russell were always the best and most important players on their respective teams. I'm not sure the same can be said for Ortiz.

Well Tom Brady doesn't play mike linebacker so I think the comparison is fair.

Click to expand...

You compared Ortiz to ALL his teammates by using batting average and leaving out pitching.
Its like me saying Brady threw for 350 yards and the whole rest of the team only had 100 so he was 3.5 times better than all of his teammates.

If one goes by WHIP the Red Sox weren't spectacularly better than the Cardinals pitchers, just a .1 difference. The difference there is basically Jon Lester, the only starter with a WHIP under 1.00 (0.65). But he would have needed a WHIP around 0.25 to compare to Ortiz's batting superiority.

Click to expand...

Why would 'one go by whip'? Its a stat that can be meaningless toward whether you win or lose depending on other factors. To say the Red Sox pitching was not good in that serious is a baffling point of view to say the least.

The Red Sox hit for a worse average than the Cardinals, and that they were even close was the sole work of David Ortiz. He hit .688 and the next best Red Sox player, Ellsbury, hit .250. The next best player on either team was Allan Craig, at .375. That's just nuts. You take Ortiz out of the lineup, I think the Sox lose in 5 games. I can't say that about any single pitcher.

Click to expand...

My point is simply that you can't say he outplayed his teammates by x amount by looking at his batting average compared to other players and ignoring pitching.

I believe Brady has meant more to the Patriots over his career than Ortiz has to the Sox. But that was one of the greatest individual championship performances in any sport. They should begin building his statue on Yawkey Way immediately. once they find enough bronze.

Click to expand...

Great performance but one of the greatest ever depends on what you mean by one of.

Of course I did. That is how I know it doesnt prove what you think it does.

what does this even mean? So if Solder gets called for holding two weeks ago Brady's stats don't count? lololol you can't be this silly of a person can you? Let go man, it's ok, you can root for the Pats without tying yourself in logical knots having to make sure we're the GOAT at every position. Say it with me: "Brady is a great Quarterback but maybe not the best ever" ahhhhhhhhhhhh

Click to expand...

A good rule of thumb is that when someone creates a strawman they do it because they cannot refute the argument presented, know it, and just won't give in.
Congratulations, you did that in textbook fashion.

you mean if we go back in time to where brady had an excellent defense and Manning didn't?

Click to expand...

I mean we look at their CAREER.

what is the point of this? like yeah Manning benefitted from the rule changes in 2004, wouldn't you expect the GOAT qb to benefit from those kind of changes?

Click to expand...

Strawman again.
BTW since the rule changes Tom Brady has QBd 4 of the top 12 scoring offenses in NFL history. Brady has better stats since the rule changes than Manning.

That doesn't undermine his greatness. Brady's numbers are way better because of those changes too. The bottom line is unless you are an insane homer everything he does and is expected to do is >> than Brady. Just grow up and get over it already.

Click to expand...

Once again, you prove you have no argument. Your argument is you are right because you say you are right, and you will degrade anyone who disagrees with you, because they disagree with you.

First of all, the comparison of the two is just plain asinine and anyone who disparages baseball and/or football by comparison is just as obtuse. Anyone who is a true, passionate, and lifelong New England sports fan shouldn't even consider the argument. It's like asking a parent which of their kids they love more. As a diehard fan everything Red Sox, Bruins, Patriots, and Celtics I cherish all the accolades, moments, and titles they have brought to New England. I just want to pass on the passion to my kids and have something we can share together.

Click to expand...

Just because I've been a lifelong fan of the Pats, Bruins and Celtics for over 50 years, it doesn't mean that I owe the Red Sox anything.

And the sports enthusiasm of our kids certainly doesn't define us as parents. One of our children would rather read a good book than watch a sporting event. I guess we really messed up with that one huh?

Sorry if that was a little harsh, but I don't think anyone has the right to decide what makes us fans. That's an individual choice.